On Monday in the last issue of the press on the front page is an article
titled 
                Witches look to worship in peace

the article goes on to state how a coven of witches was harrassed by
some police, and how the coven leader Michael Poe is pressing charges
against the police. He hopes not be harrassed anymore. He stressed 
that the coven was a sepreate reglion and christian devil worshipers.

63 responses total.

I know Michael, aka Figment, and I met him again a few days
ago at the Magickal Life meeting.  (And where were you, Kami?  >8)
I'm really sorry to hear about this, since I used to live in
Sumpter, and my family still does.  Of course, I'm glad the
article got published before the Ypsi Press died.  >8)

I as well know Mike and could probably guess at who the Coven members were. 
I'll have to give him a call and see what's up.
I had no idea anything was going on. Several years ago another Coven member
of Mike's had problems with the Ypsi police. Again completely unjust.

Let's see how well I can retell it, as told second-hand by Fox and first-hand
by Windweaver:
About 2 Saturdays ago the Crafters were holding a ritual in the screen tent
outside Fig's mobile home.  A number of neighborhood boys, aged maybe 14 to
19, who have hassled Fig and his family before, were hanging around being
annoying, so someone (Thomas?) circled around behind them and either tapped 
a couple on the shoulder or just startled them by speaking and asked them to
leave.  One tripped and bruised himself a bit.  They ran off to their folks
and called the cops, claiming to have been assaulted with a sword (which the
person who spoke to them might still have been carrying- I forget).  

Well, the circle went on with the ritual, and in a little while heard sirens
but ignored them.  Next thing, the cops burst in with the usual "What'n hell's
going on here?" etc., frisked people, grabbed knives and tossed them in a
pile outside, etc.  Fig tried to point out that it was a religious ceremony,
but the cops blew them off at first.  One took the sage smudge and put it 
down on the wooden board which was serving as altar, so Figment pointed out
that that could cause a fire.  Instead, the cop doused it in the ritual 
chalice.  Well, eventually, everyone got calmed down, the situation explained,
the tools and everything presented, and so on.  The cops appologized.  
Someone suggested that next time, Figment himself call and press charges
against the kids for harrassment, so they figure out that it isn't a lark.
Well, hearing this story galvanized Fox into going down and talking to the
Ann Arbor cops before our Solstice ritual.  He got a very cordial reception
(helps to take proactive action, and to look "normal" I suppose), which made
it easier for Figment to make an appointment and go talk to the cops in his
area, so I think the net result may end up being positive.

Anyone who happens to talk to Figment or another of those folks, please feel
free to correct or ammend this account.  Thanks.

This was quite a while ago. How did it turn out, or has it been resolved yet?

long since resolved.  cops suggested that next time, the Crafters press 
charges against the kids for harassment (some of them are over 18). Got
good newspaper and TV coverage out of it, and a better rapport withthe cops.
Useful over all, if scary at the time.

Whew! Glad to hear it worked out.

American religious xenophobia is responsible for incidents more serious than
this. this. Any who do not believe me can check the Circle Network News section
that deals with such matters.  It is not unheard-of for people to lose custodt
of children (please forgive typos) because of being pagan.

true.  we need to work together, more and more, to protect each other's
right to exist, to worship, to live as we choose, even in cases where
we might not want to share ritual space.
We need a protective network, so that when someone takes the risk of
being open and loses a job, a home, or (may it never happen) a kid, there
are people to offer love, security, support, and practical help.

I agree.

but we must also ask where to draw the line.  if a religion preaches
murder of the "impure" do we respect their "right" to kill?

Is the question really about where to draw a line? Seems to me the question is
which is the higher law, religious or secular? Unless you live in a place
where government dictates religion, societal law takes precedence.

Assuming of course, that you don't live in a place where religion
dictates government, either.  American law, despite the First Amendment,
has many laws which are based on Christian morality (which is often
non-Xian morality as well, but morality is seldom universal).

Orinoco:  repeat after me -- your rights end where my nose begins.
A religion does not have the right to kill impure non-believers because
it impinges on the rights of the non-believers.

The thing is, brighn, that christian morality *is* your rights end where
my nose begins, except that I should pick you up when you fall, and vise
versa.  Whether or not the actions suit the words, these are the morals,
and this is what our country was founded on.

*brighn falls off chair*
Why is prostitution, drug use, pornography, obscenity, gambling, etc.,
all illegal in some respect or another??  "Your rights end where my
nose begins" implies that there are no victimless crimes, but there
are.

Even if you do all of these "crimes" in a closet at home you're still
a victim.
And to be fair the founding fathers did not base the country on religion. Ther
has been a lot of debate on this but even christian scholars will admit this.
Perhaps it was based on some kernal of judeo christian philosophy, but not 
a religion, not the christian god.
IMHO!

(Ignoring the fact, of course, that Jefferson and Franklin were 
not quite Christians.)

I sould have to say that all those crimes have victems.  I have yet to
find a crime without a victem.

        But what is a crime? And by what definition? By Judeo-Christian
standards <which MANY laws reflect> there are many "crimes" that really
have NO victims.

Out of curiousity, Dang, who is the victim of prostitution?
The hooker?  She is punished by society not as much by what she does
as by (a) having to do it because there are no other economically viable
options open to her and (b) breaking the law.  She IS a law-breaker, but
only because there are laws against it.
The john?  Not hardly.
Not only that, the hooker is the perpetrator of the crime... 
Can the perp also be the victim?

Who ist the victim of drug use?  The uiser -- again, the perp IS the
victim?  doesn't make any sense to me.

Maybe, you'll say, the victim is the little children that get run over
when somebody high on crack jumps the curb.  But the crime is reckless
driving, not drug use.  I believe all drugs should be legalized, but I
also believe that you are 100% responsible for your actions when you
are drunk/stoned/high/fucked up.  Actually, more responsible than when
sober, IMHO.

Show me the victims, Dang.

        That's kinda my point, although I'd say the victim of crack use is
the user- that stuff is DANGEROUS! <Trust me, I live in a crack-infested
part of Detroit>

Yes, the victem can be the person who commits the crime.  The prostitute
and the john both lose because they are having sex in a loveless
situation, and this is emotionally damaging.  Ask the pshrinks. (One of
the few times I agree with them)  As for teh drugs, they are very, very
damaging to the users.  The users are definately victems.

but is punishment appropriate, when an individual chooses to do something
which will harm theirself (lordy, what's the correct grammar for that one?).
I mean, if we really care about the prostitute and the john "losing" in
loveless sex (not to mention STDs), oughtn't we to respond by helping them
to find deeper love, self-love so they feel worthy, a better source of
income, etc.?  Or is it easier to slap a fine on them both and try to get
them out of sight, off our consciences, and feel all self righteous about
working to clean up the neighborhood, lower the crime rate, protect the 
children, regain family values, etc.?  Not claiming such heedlessness of
anyone here, just saying that it's behind alot of our legal code and 
popular arguements.

        No kidding! I can't stand how people see a problem, look at ways
of punishing it, instead of solving it, and act like it's cool.
It's not.

Hmmm... Webster's:
victim  1. A living being sacrificed to a deity or in performance of
a religious rite; 2. Someone injured, destroyed, or sacrificed under any of
various conditions; 3. Someone tricked or duped.

O.k., by definition 2, I suppose a drug user can be a victim.
But it strikes me as odd (AND MORALISTIC) to prohibit someone from
injuring oneself.  Where does the line get drawn?  Ban cholesterol?
Ban television?  Alcohol is more physically damaging in the long wrong
than marijuana (in sum), and yet the former is legal... why?

I should be free to informed self-abuse, as long as I don't attempt to
drain the system... remove crack abusers from welfare, maybe, but don't
imprison them.

        Now you've gone and hit a tender spot, brighn. Look, if crack
wasn't reason enough to go to jail, do you have any idea how much worse
it'd be where I live? At least Detroit's Finest have a reason to come down
and clean out the scum occasionally, who are either making a living <and a
killing> supplying the destructive stuff, or are using it, and robbing,
maiming and killing others for more! Now you tell me that it's victimless!
Bullshit! What about the woman who got gunned down last week for her purse
by sme buzzed lunatic? Fuck crack. It's nasty.
        Alcohol WOULDN'T be allowed today, if it had to be passed by
today's standards. That'd be fine by me, I've been hurt too often by
friends who turn into nightmares when drunk.

I'm sorry I hit a button, Selena, but I'm not changing that view.
The problems you describe are not (not not not not) caused by crack
use and abuse.  They are caused by the illegality of crack.
Look at Prohibition.  SImilar crime levels, but alcohol never changed...
it was the fact that alcohol was illegal that caused the crime.
Crack, IMHO, would never have been developed if cocaine had never
been illegal.  The longer drugs are illegal, the more toxic they will
become.
Cops should be arresting people for the murders, etc, NOT the drug use.
But out of all the major crimes, the only one whose prosecution rate
has increased over the last decade or so is drug use and sale.  This
DESPITE the fact that the illegal drug trade has caused murders, rapes,
and other crimes to soar... the arrest and prosecution rate of these
crimes has gone DOWN.  So, now, Selena, they're not cleaning out the
scum, they're too distracted by the pushers to clean out the real scum.

        Brighn I don't like alcohol, either, and what it makes people turn
        into,
and THAT is legal. it's responsible, to a good degree for the general
decay in Detroit! People who say "oh, I don't do none of that illegal stuff"
still get blasted on alcohol, and, because they get ADDICTED to it,
they let things slide. They don't keep up their property. They stop
bothering to keep an eye on the neighborhood. And, because there are so
many drunks in Detroit, this decay gets widespread. AND THIS IS LEGAL<
DAMMIT! You can't tell me that it's something else. I live here, brighn,
I see what goes on around here. Do you know that it's almost impossible
to find a pop can amongst all the malt liquor bottles that line the alleys,
streets, and yards? It's LEGAL. It still produces victims.

I've seen it, Selena.  I know what alcoholism does.  IT comes down to a
question, for me, of what's worse:  the drug, or the war on drugs. In my
opinion, it's the war on drugs.  I may be wrong.

At the risk of sounding like an unfeeling ass...crack and alcohol are apples
and oranges.  I drink frequntly in and out of ritual and can't see much of a 
paralell between any coccaine and alcohol.  I do realize that alcoholism is
real real,  but that disease isn't about alcohol.

        So, what's it about, seeing as it involves a chemical AND psychological
addiction to alcohol? It's a drug, man! If that makes you uncomfortable,
maybe you shouldn't be using it!

Alcoholism isn't really about alcohol; it's about addiction.  Most people who
are compulsively addicted to someting could as easily get addicted to something
else; drug or not.  There are cretainly enough poeple addicted to the Net.
        Regardless, drug addiction, of most types, is bad for the individual,
the question here is how and where it should be combatted.  As far as all
the facts and the evidence goes, illegalization of a drug ahs never decreased 
its usage, nor has it impacted drug related crime.  What it does do (along with
other victimless /self-victimizing crimes) is create and support a niche for 
organized crime, thereby vastly increasing the profitabity of crime.  if you
want to decrease the actual harmfulness of crie, you legalize it, tax it, and
regulate it.  The angle the rest of us are coming from isnt' necessarily tha
t d"drugs a are cool and shouldn't be illegal;"  it's that "The lawas are brok
why not fix them?"

Thanks Joshua.  Salena...what he said! Investigate alcoholism then
we'll talk.
As a past teenage experimentor I can testify to the difference between casual
recreative drugs and well, not so casual drugs.  THere's a big difference.  
I think saying a drug is a drug is way off, and usually spewed by the same 
people that don't have kids but have all the right advice for parents!
The other side of this argument is what Joshua was talking about.  People 
with addictions can be addicted to anything, with that disease there are no
casual uses, it's all hard.  And need not be drugs, could be sex or basketball!
Watching people work through addiction does make me uncomfortable but I've 
helped support many close friends.  My stopping to enjoy a nice cold ale
isn't going to help any of them! And would make me very unhappy!
Wouldn't want to insult John BarleyCorn!
Peace and blessings all!

bingo.  How many non-smoking AA meetings has anyone ever found?...And what
of those people (no joke) who are "addicted" to their 12-step meetings?
Addictive behavior *can* be substance-specific: allergy driven or
something, but it's more often systemic and pervasive.U

Not just addicted to 12-step programs, but codependent:  remember, you're
NEVER NEVER NEVER a recovered alcoholic, you're always recovering.  THAT
means (to many AA frequenters, at any rate) that you can never stop going
to AA meetings ... to do so would be to imply that you're healed, which
would mean they have no more role in your life, so they have to keep you
coming to the meetings.  (I speak not from experience but from bitches
shared by friends with experience.)

At any rate, no, a drug is not a drug.  Crack is worse in many (the majority)
of ways than alcohol.  But many legal drugs are worse than many illegal
drugs -- there's no consistency to it (caffeine, for instance, is more 
physically addictive than maryjane,
although the short-term health problems are nowhere near as bad).

hey!  I have addictive patterns with sugar.  Should we make THAT "drug"
illegal?  It certainly has physical and mood-altering effects, long-term
health effects when overused or abused, and can be addictive.  Silly? I
think so.  It's a matter of PERSONAL responsibility. If there is a social
responsibility, it's not to punish/scare me (or anyone else) into avoiding
the seductive trap.  Rather, it would be wonderful to go out in public\
without constantly being exposed to the temptation- as is the case for
those with alcohol, caffeine, and still in many places, nicotine problems.
If any special time and effort was being taken, I'd sooner see it go to
helping devise alternatives to the self-destructive behavior, other ways of
coping, rather than in hours of debate over penalties, "just say no" or
enforcement. 

I've tried to kick the caffiene monkey off my back! Oi!  Talk about
headaches!
Just can't give up the once a day espresso.  I think I'll stay addicted!

Just for referance, and not to attack anyone, there is very strong
evidance that aclohol is changed in the liver, and, by the time it reaches
the brain, has become the came addictive agent that is found in heroin.
Thus, alcohol is one of the more addictive drugs.  Not necesarily as
harmful physically, but rather addicitve

Hmmmm.  I've never heard that before dang.  Where'd you read this?
In addition, I suppose that I don't really care if I am addicted to it
it's not causing me any problems, and I'm getting a heel of a lot of
enjoyment so DRINK ON!!

Regarding alechemical transformation, the physical addictiveness of a 
drug can be empirically determined; if it physically hurts when you stop,
you were probably physically addicted.  Given this scale, while alchohol is
physically addictive, it is nowhere near the addictive properties of heroin,
or even opium (its psychological addictive factors, on the other hand...).
        In any case, this gets away from the fact that it is nto the 
government's function (or at least, it shouldn't be) to impose mor
rectitude on its members, but to protect the rights of its members from others.
It is certainly not the function of the government to protect its members 
from themselves.  Given this as an axiom (that one of the rights that it is the
government's buisness to protect is that of making your own mistakes, even if
they lead to your own death or harm), the only reasons for vice laws is 
protecting others, and protecting the non-self-responsible (minors and mentally
ill) from themselves.  The latter can be argued, but I have no desire to; it is
a much more complicated issue than that of voluntary drug use.  The former can
easily be disproven; the reason vices are surrounded by crime is that the law
is structured such that only criminals can traffic in them.  
        By making profitable things criminal, all that results is for crime 
to become profitable.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss